ACCforum: King V Acc 137 2001 Ai 393 2000 - ACCforum

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

King V Acc 137 2001 Ai 393 2000 1998 Act workcapacity

#1 Guest_Read Me_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 14 January 2006 - 01:31 PM

|N THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT DUNEDIN WELLINGTON REGISTRY

Decision No. 137 /2001 Appeal No. Al 393/2000

UNDER
The Accident Insurance Act 1998 ("the Act")

AND IN THE MATTER
of an appeal against a Review Decision pursuant to section 148 of the Act

BETWEEN
BARRY ALLAN KING of Dunedin Appellant

AND
ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION
Respondent

HEARD at DUNEDIN on 1 February 2001
DATE OF DECISION: 11th June 2001

COUNSEL
P Sara for appellant
C J Hlavac for respondent

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE P F BARBER

The Issue
[1] I am asked to determine whether the respondent's decision that the appellant had a capacity for work followed a correct procedural process in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act. This is an appeal against a decision of Mrs E A Grant, Reviewer, dated 12 July 2000 (following a hearing before her in Dunedin on 14 June 2000) in which she held that the respondent had correctly found that the appellant has a capacity for work.
[2] The issues disclosed from the appellant's Notice of Appeal are:
[a] Whether there was and is sufficient evidence that the Medical Assessor, Dr Michael Robb, was properly qualified to carry out the medical assessments; and


[b] Whether the decision that the appellant had a capacity for work was properly carried out in accordance with the Act, and specifically:
[i] whether the fact that the work capacity assessment was commenced under the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 ("the 1992 Act") prior to 1 July 1999, but concluded after 1 July 1999 and therefore under the Act, thereby invalidates the assessments; and
[ii] if not, whether the mandatory notice requirements set out in section 93 of the Act were complied with.
[3] Subsequently, the appellant challenged the substance of both the occupational and medical assessments.
[4] In the course of the hearing, it was conceded by the appellant that Dr Robb is appropriately qualified to be a Medical Assessor under the Act. In any case, I am satisfied that Dr Robb has the interest and proven work experience, in both disability management in the workplace and in occupational rehabilitation, in terms of section 98(2)(a) of the Act which sets out the requirements for a Medical Assessor.

Attached File(s)


0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users